16:01:45 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
16:01:45 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 16 16:01:45 2015 UTC.  The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:45 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:45 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
16:01:45 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
16:01:45 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:02:32 <geppetto> geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp racor Rathann SmootherFr0gZ spot tibbs|w tomspur: FPC ping
16:02:38 <tibbs|w> Howdy.
16:02:49 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
16:02:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto tibbs
16:02:56 <geppetto> hey
16:03:05 <tomspur> Hi
16:03:05 <geppetto> did you have a meeting last week?
16:03:09 <geppetto> #chair tomspur
16:03:09 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto tibbs tomspur
16:03:09 <tibbs|w> Yes.
16:03:25 <tibbs|w> But I suck at the whole meeting thing and failed to send an agenda.
16:03:30 <geppetto> ahh
16:03:34 <tibbs|w> We did get some stuff done.
16:03:39 <geppetto> didn't see any minutes either … so wasn't sure :)
16:03:48 <tibbs|w> The minutes are auto-sent now.
16:03:53 <geppetto> Oh
16:03:56 <tibbs|w> Just not to that mailing list.
16:04:00 <geppetto> ahh
16:04:05 <tibbs|w> Haven't figured out what we're supposed to do there.
16:04:33 <geppetto> blame nirik ?? ;)
16:04:41 <tibbs|w> Works for me.
16:05:10 <nirik> I accept your blame and raise you guilt!
16:05:21 <Rathann> hi
16:05:38 <geppetto> #chair Rathann
16:05:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto tibbs tomspur
16:05:44 <geppetto> nirik: ha :)
16:05:59 <tibbs|w> orionp and mbooth said they couldn't make it.
16:06:18 <geppetto> hmmm
16:06:51 <geppetto> limburgher racor Rathann SmootherFr0gZ spot: FPC ping
16:07:23 <geppetto> Bah sorry for all the pings Rathann
16:08:19 <Rathann> :) no problem
16:10:37 <geppetto> doesn't look like we'll get 5
16:11:15 <geppetto> Schedule was: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2015-April/010558.html
16:11:21 <tibbs|w> So you get off easy.
16:11:25 <geppetto> Is there anything we should talk about anyway?
16:11:31 <tibbs|w> That UID thing.
16:11:37 <geppetto> for ceph?
16:11:39 <tibbs|w> Yeah.
16:12:07 <tibbs|w> I'm thinking that may be one of the few valid reasons, except that I don't understand why it would actually help their use case.
16:12:20 <tibbs|w> But I don't know squat about ceph.
16:12:49 <geppetto> #topic #524 	static UID for ceph
16:12:55 <geppetto> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524
16:13:04 <tibbs|w> BTW, .fpc works now
16:13:07 <tibbs|w> .fpc 524
16:13:09 <zodbot> tibbs|w: #524 (static UID for ceph) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524
16:13:23 <tibbs|w> nirik set that up for us last week.
16:13:30 <geppetto> oh, cool
16:13:53 <geppetto> So I just do #topic + .fpc now?
16:14:06 <tibbs|w> I think so; saves you from pasting the URL.
16:14:08 <geppetto> So, yeh, the ceph thing looks like a pretty normal shared storage thing
16:14:44 <tibbs|w> So what would having a static UID actually give them?
16:15:13 <tibbs|w> If they're a filesystem, they could just specify the UID at mount time like FAT does.
16:15:26 <geppetto> I assume the ceph stuff needs write access to the files
16:15:28 <tibbs|w> Or is it some kind of layered thing where there's really ext4 underneath.
16:15:51 <tibbs|w> But if they're a filesystem, they can give write access to whatever they want.
16:15:57 <tibbs|w> That's what I'm not understanding.
16:16:34 <tibbs|w> I mean, if I mount fat or tmpfs, I can pass uid= whatever I want.
16:16:52 <geppetto> AIUI the back store for the ceph filesystem is giant files stored on ext4
16:17:16 <geppetto> So you plug the drive in with ext4 files on it, and then ceph needs to be able to rw those files
16:17:21 <tibbs|w> OK, that makes more sense.  I figured it had to be something like that.
16:17:42 <tibbs|w> And according to the ticket they're trying to get away from using root.
16:17:52 <geppetto> yeh
16:18:10 <tibbs|w> Even a shim to do a chown would work.
16:18:14 <Rathann> if it's ext4 then it's easy to mount it temporarily somewhere and fix the uid before mounting it in the final place
16:18:19 <tibbs|w> But...
16:18:45 <Rathann> IMHO they should start a discussion on the cross-distro corrdination mailing list first
16:19:18 <tibbs|w> Actually suse and debian just copied what ktdreyer put in the FPC ticket.
16:19:32 <tibbs|w> Thing is, they're going to have to do the chown thing anyway, to support existing filesystems.
16:20:23 <tibbs|w> ext4 doesn't seem to support forcing the UID on mount, which is unfortunate as it would obviate the need for this.
16:21:14 <tibbs|w> So, I guess I'm not particularly opposed to this, but it seems like the least creative way to handle this.
16:21:44 <tibbs|w> And if distros don't agree on the actual UID chosen then I'm not entirely sure what the point is.
16:22:48 <geppetto> it's still useful within a distro. family though
16:22:57 <tibbs|w> But I guess the actual choice of the UID would be up to the setup maintainer.
16:24:00 <tibbs|w> If I can ever get the time to work on this idea I have about fixing UIDs before package installation, the "within the distro family" thing wouldn't be much of a concern for Fedora.
16:24:28 <tibbs|w> orion showed ma a glorious hack that means I don't have to add a new kickstart section to anaconda.
16:25:41 <geppetto> that would be cool
16:25:58 <tibbs|w> Yeah.  I just wonder if anyone would accept the hack.
16:26:03 <geppetto> although that means a custom kickstart for every machine you want to share ceph files with, right?
16:26:21 <tibbs|w> Not really, no.
16:26:42 <tibbs|w> Well, for machines that are already installed, you can just change the UID it uses.
16:27:19 <tibbs|w> Fresh kickstarts are always the issue, so allowing UID fixing there would solve the majority of the issues.
16:27:25 <tibbs|w> We have five now, don't we?
16:27:44 <racor> hi, sorry for being late.
16:28:15 <tibbs|w> racor: We were just discussing the static UID for ceph.
16:28:18 <tibbs|w> .fpc 524
16:28:21 <zodbot> tibbs|w: #524 (static UID for ceph) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/524
16:28:22 <racor> ok
16:28:48 <tibbs|w> We could vote now, but I'm not sure there's consensus.
16:29:06 <geppetto> #chair racor
16:29:06 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto racor tibbs tomspur
16:29:17 <geppetto> I'm +1 on letting them have it
16:29:29 <tibbs|w> I as well.
16:29:30 <tibbs|w> +1
16:31:22 <tomspur> have one for "all Fedora/RHEL systems" or wait for a generall distribution outcome?
16:31:25 <racor> 0 ... I am lacking sufficient background to be able to have an opion
16:31:40 <tibbs|w> tomspur: Really the choice of UID isn't up to us.
16:31:55 <tibbs|w> If we allow it, I'm sure they'll do their best to find one everyone can agree on.
16:32:48 <geppetto> yeh
16:32:53 <geppetto> that's what I'm assuming anyway
16:33:29 <racor> I wonder how they achieve "exchanging drives" without being root to set uids
16:33:47 <tibbs|w> RIght now they are root.
16:34:09 <tibbs|w> In the future they won't be, so they want to pick a UID so that they can exchange drives that way.
16:34:20 <racor> the request is about doing the same "unprivileged"
16:34:27 <geppetto> there are a bunch of situations where you might want to let someone be able to insert/remove drives from a hot swap bay but not have root on the drive
16:34:34 <geppetto> on the host*
16:37:18 <tibbs|w> racor: Yes, if they can depend on the UID in use, they don't need to be privileged.
16:37:32 <tibbs|w> Supposedly.  I mean, something actually has to mount the filesystem.
16:37:43 <tibbs|w> I guess they use udisks or whatever we're using now to handle that.
16:38:16 <geppetto> yeh, I assumed auto mount
16:39:06 <tibbs|w> It's all still kind of confusing to me.  I'm assuming they've thought about this quite a bit, but nobody communicated that to us.
16:39:21 <tibbs|w> At least a link to a list discussion or docs or something would have been useful.
16:39:32 <tibbs|w> Anyway, no way we'll get to +5 today.
16:40:17 <geppetto> yeh
16:40:57 <geppetto> #action A link/summary of the upstream discussion of how this will be used, might be nice. Currently split on how this is useful.
16:41:24 <geppetto> #topic #522 	Should -static packages require -devel
16:41:27 <tibbs|w> We are at +2, though, and could collect votes in the ticket.
16:41:36 <geppetto> .fpc 522
16:41:37 <zodbot> geppetto: #522 (Should -static packages require -devel) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/522
16:41:54 <geppetto> Hopefully we'll have more people next week and can just look at it again, then
16:42:15 <tibbs|w> To me this 522 is just one of those things I don't care about.
16:42:44 <tomspur> I still think my assumption there is not that "wrong"?
16:43:11 <tomspur> This would make it more complicated to actually link to the static library, but maybe that's also intended :)
16:43:17 <geppetto> Yeh, I don't see why we want to add must here
16:43:39 <tibbs|w> I don't see why we want to spend time on this at all for what would be, what, ten packages?
16:44:02 <racor> +1  Actually, I wonder people came up with this. It used to be "common sense" and is inevitable in practice (Header must be in *devel, so no *static without devel)
16:44:21 <geppetto> tomspur: The only reason I can think of is that relying on that then breaks the ~0 people who still use rpmbuild on a host that has the -static and -devel installed
16:44:53 <geppetto> although > 0 for epel, I'd guess
16:45:08 <tibbs|w> I was willing to +1 it last week because of not caring enough either way.  Why not save a line in a couple of specs if it makes sense?
16:46:05 <Rathann> so what is the proposed rewording?
16:46:22 <Rathann> I thought it was obvious that static must require -devel if headers are there
16:46:29 <tibbs|w> There wasn't one, making it more fun.
16:46:40 <Rathann> meh
16:46:44 <geppetto> Rathann: the ticket seems to be more like "static always requires devel"
16:46:49 <racor> geppetto: In fedora, the implicit default is to link dynamical. static linkage only takes place if no shared libs are available or if static linkage has explicitly been specified.
16:46:53 <tibbs|w> Wait....
16:47:03 <tibbs|w> " If the *-static subpackage requires headers or other files from *-devel in order to be useful it must require the *-devel subpackage. "
16:47:30 <tibbs|w> orionp wrote that in there last week.
16:47:43 <tibbs|w> Did I forget to update the ticket after a vote?  Probably.
16:47:43 <geppetto> hmmm
16:48:06 <geppetto> #action was voted on last week, and policy changed.
16:48:15 <tibbs|w> Just so happened that the past three weeks have been incredibly busy for me.
16:48:21 <Rathann> tibbs|w: +1 to that wording FWIW
16:48:32 <tibbs|w> Rathann: That's the current wording, actually.
16:49:00 <tibbs|w> Let me dig the vote out of the logs.  I swear I pasted it in there already but might not have hit submit.
16:49:02 <Rathann> tibbs|w: not on the wiki yet
16:49:12 <tibbs|w> I just pasted it from the wiki....
16:49:16 <geppetto> #topic #515 	Bundling determination and exception request
16:49:18 <rdieter> I still think it silly to have to explicitly say in guidelines: "if pkg A needs pkg B to be functional, then pkg A MUST Requires: B" , in order to get maintainer to add the dep :(
16:49:21 <geppetto> .fpc 515
16:49:22 <zodbot> geppetto: #515 (Bundling determination and exception request) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/515
16:49:32 <tibbs|w> rdieter: Don't disagree, but meh.
16:49:34 <geppetto> rdieter: yeh, but it's there now
16:49:49 <rdieter> for -devel case
16:50:02 <tibbs|w> Sometimes people want to play lawyer.  "But the guidelines don't say that I have to, so pbftttt."
16:50:05 <rdieter> (it should be common sense)
16:50:31 <rdieter> indeed, that's why this happened, which is just dumb, sorry for the side-track
16:51:32 <tibbs|w> We didn't talk about 515 in the last two weeks.
16:53:12 <tibbs|w> Seems like his questions are valid, but I don't know the answers.
16:53:40 <geppetto> I don't see anything in the last comment to change my mind … static lib. that *&%$
16:54:00 <geppetto> for his three questions:
16:54:06 <tibbs|w> Probably just a case of someone needing to help him do it.
16:55:15 <geppetto> 1) Don't care … pick one. 2) Not really, it's still static. 3) the size is based on the bundling code (not the clients) … which is pretty big from what I can see.
16:55:46 <geppetto> Anyone else have a different opinion?
16:56:18 <tibbs|w> Not me.
16:56:38 <tibbs|w> I've never done that static library packaging thing, though.  How difficult is it?
16:56:58 <tomspur> +1
16:57:00 <geppetto> Just like a normal library, but you don't have to care about ABIs as much :)
16:58:58 <geppetto> #action Create a static. lib., decide among yourself who will own it. Size exception is based on the bundling size (and xmlrpcpp is big).
16:59:10 <geppetto> #topic #520 	[Guidelines Draft] Per-Product Configuration Defaults v2
16:59:16 <geppetto> .fpc 520
16:59:17 <zodbot> geppetto: #520 ([Guidelines Draft] Per-Product Configuration Defaults v2) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/520
16:59:37 <Rathann> well, why not create a shared library while he's unbundling it anyway?
16:59:39 <tibbs|w> This was hung up because we asked for something to be macroized and the redhat-rpm-config maintainers haven't responded to the ticket.
16:59:53 <geppetto> Rathann: that's much harder if upstream don't care about ABI
17:00:04 <Rathann> ok
17:00:23 <Rathann> fair enough
17:00:37 <geppetto> tibbs: do we leave it in needinfo then, or keep it in meeting and check the BZ every week?
17:00:51 <geppetto> move it to needinfo*
17:00:55 <tibbs|w> I suggest to sgallagh that he just go ahead and add the damn macro.
17:01:01 <geppetto> :)
17:01:16 <tibbs|w> If the macro is good, it doesn't matter what package has it as long as the guidelines match.
17:01:29 <geppetto> where would he add it to?
17:01:34 <tibbs|w> And if the redhat-rpm-config maintainers balk, he can move it.
17:01:45 <sgallagh> tibbs|w: OK, I'll just push it to redhat-rpm-config later today
17:02:10 <tibbs|w> Unless there's some other package which all of these packages will need.  And I don't think there is.
17:02:26 <tibbs|w> For language stuff you'd stick it in the appropriate -devel or compiler package or whatever.
17:03:03 <tibbs|w> We can drop macros into /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d trivially now, unlike in the dark old days.
17:03:15 * geppetto nods
17:03:43 <racor> tibb|w: ACK
17:04:28 <racor> this would also make packages which are using these macros identiable at the rpm level.
17:05:40 <geppetto> So do we need to do anything, or are we waiting on the package changes that sgallagh will do?
17:05:51 <tibbs|w> sgallagh: So, honestly, if you don't want to mess with redhat-rpm-config, just put it into an appropriate package and tweak the guidelines to say that packages which will do this kind of thing need to BR: that package.
17:05:53 * nirik wonders if we may want some more active redhat-rpm-config maintainers
17:06:09 <tibbs|w> nirik: I kind of assume it's community-maintained at this point.
17:06:22 <tibbs|w> I added some macro a while back and nobody seemed to care at all.
17:06:26 <geppetto> nirik: Aren't they the rpm maintainers?
17:06:49 <tibbs|w> It's ffesti, I think
17:06:53 * geppetto nods
17:07:02 <geppetto> so, yeh
17:07:03 <nirik> geppetto: yeah, but I think ffesti has wanted as little to do with it as possible
17:07:05 <sgallagh> It feels to me like that package should be group-maintained by FPC
17:07:05 <tibbs|w> Haven't seen anything at all from him in a long time, though.
17:07:28 <nirik> in fact I recall in a bug him saying for me to make changes he didn't have time/desire.
17:07:33 <tibbs|w> ffesti, jcm, and Panu.
17:07:36 <geppetto> Yeh, I wouldn't be shocked if it was way down his TODO list … and he's busy since Panu left
17:07:45 <tibbs|w> ajax wanted in but hasn't been given access.
17:08:09 <geppetto> weird
17:08:21 <tibbs|w> He asked for access a long time ago.
17:08:40 <tibbs|w> Before the pkgdb timeline, at least.
17:08:53 <tibbs|w> Anyway, I say just do it and lets go forward.
17:09:02 <tibbs|w> sgallagh: Is use of that macro documented in the current draft?
17:09:05 <geppetto> Hmmm … that's a long time ago :)
17:09:32 <tibbs|w> Doesn't look like it.
17:09:47 <sgallagh> tibbs|w: No, sorry.
17:09:51 <sgallagh> I'll do that after Go/No-Go
17:10:05 <tibbs|w> And wasn't there a question recently about some use of %ghost?
17:10:11 <sgallagh> that kind of fell off my radar with beta release shuffle
17:10:27 <tibbs|w> 16:21:26 <racor> how about %ghost'ing the symlinks?
17:10:31 <sgallagh> tibbs|w: Right, I remember
17:10:33 <tibbs|w> 16:21:49 <sgallagh> racor: Did I forget to write that?
17:10:35 <sgallagh> I will add that too
17:10:35 <tibbs|w> 16:21:55 <sgallagh> Yeah, that's necessary. Oops
17:10:38 <tibbs|w> Cool.
17:11:04 <geppetto> amusingly ajax was the last person to build redhat-rpm-config
17:12:25 <tibbs|w> So I guess we can revisit this next week when the macro should be in and the draft fixed up.
17:13:16 <sgallagh> I'm working on it right now in parallel. If there are other agenda items, I may be able to finish it before you're done
17:13:34 <geppetto> Ok
17:13:59 <geppetto> #action sgallagh just do the macro change, and update the draft. We'll vote on it next week.
17:14:06 <geppetto> #topic #513 	Use python -Es in shbang
17:14:14 <geppetto> .fpc 513
17:14:16 <zodbot> geppetto: #513 (Use python -Es in shbang) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/513
17:14:40 <geppetto> I think we are waiting on tibbs to do macros here?
17:14:47 <tibbs|w> Well, there's recent discussion.
17:14:55 <tibbs|w> And there are macros in 281.
17:15:00 <tibbs|w> .fpc 281
17:15:01 <zodbot> tibbs|w: #281 (New Python Macros for Easier Packaging) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/281
17:15:15 * geppetto nods … but they needed tweaking IIRC
17:15:52 <geppetto> I'm happy to delay it another week or so
17:16:20 <geppetto> esp. as the meat of the ticket has been voted on already
17:17:10 <tibbs|w> Yeah, this is no big deal.  Plus there's so much confusion about the right thing to do with the unversioned macros.
17:17:18 * geppetto nods
17:17:19 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
17:17:50 <geppetto> I did a quick look at 508, but I'd rather give tibbs a few more weeks to do his thing
17:18:16 <geppetto> would be cool if he/we got an instant gratification for the work.
17:18:53 <geppetto> Anything else before lunch?
17:20:28 <sgallagh> geppetto: Page updated now
17:20:34 <sgallagh> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sgallagh/Per-Product_Configuration_Packaging_Draft
17:21:03 <sgallagh> I haven't built the updated redhat-rpm-config yet, but that should be the presumed final form of the draft
17:21:07 <tibbs|w> Sorry, someone at the door.
17:21:35 <tibbs|w> If I can finish this current project (implementing a security camera system, including writing the software) then I'll have some actual free time.
17:22:04 <tomspur> Sorry, also someone at the door. Need to go...
17:22:42 <geppetto> sgallagh: ok, cool
17:23:38 <tibbs|w> I'm out.  Will try to do a pass over the existing tickets and see what I forgot to record and close up over the past two weeks.
17:25:48 <geppetto> Ok, I guess we're done
17:25:49 <geppetto> #endmeeting